Not at all. We may consider the entire path from source host to the (well known) ingress node to the locator-bestowed ingress node to the locator-bestowed egress node to the (well-known) egress node to the destination host. On this whole way we may consider where and how locators are transported (and also inserted, exchanged or removed) - e.g. by which layer i (with potential i= 2 or 2.5 or 3) Heiner On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:12 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > The network layer needs to cater for a two-loose-hops routing. The first > loose hop is the path to the egress-locator. The second loose hop is the > path from there to the destination host. Would it be a problem if we split the routing in three hops? - One from the source host to the egress-locator(router?). - Another form the source egress-locator the destination ingress-locator. - The last from the destination ingress-locator to the destination host. -- DY -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- Von: Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> An: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Verschickt: Fr., 11. Jun. 2010, 13:10 Thema: Re: [rrg] semantic overloading On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:12 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > The network layer needs to cater for a two-loose-hops routing. The first > loose hop is the path to the egress-locator. The second loose hop is the > path from there to the destination host. Would it be a problem if we split the routing in three hops? - One from the source host to the egress-locator(router?). - Another form the source egress-locator the destination ingress-locator. - The last from the destination ingress-locator to the destination host. -- DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
